NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1861532,00.html
A Vatican official has said the Catholic church will excommunicate a medical team who performed Colombia's first legal abortion on an 11-year-old girl, who was eight weeks pregnant after being raped by her stepfather.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".

i say good for them. perhaps one day they will excommunicate themselves out of business altogether. it will probably take a little longer than i'd prefer, but nobody seems up for a solid round of anti-clerical rioting just now, so it'll have to do.

*looks at to do list*

Ah, getting excommunicated is already on there.

I think, mostly, it is to make a point though note they didn't inflict same punishment on the girl.

The Catholic Church is corrupt in many ways, as a Catholic myself I know that well, but it belives that abortion is murder and calls it the silent holocuast. It isn't too suprising that they did this though I feel sorry for 11 year old

I'll give the Catholic Church this - they are perfectly willing to be consistent in application as far as their doctrine regarding a fetus's moral value goes. They do not look for ways out when it leads them to inconvenient conclusions, like the notion that this girl should be compelled to undergo pregnancy.

i personally like how the "abominable crime" in question isn't the rape of a little girl by her stepfather. perhaps it hits a little close to home for the cardinal...

Interesting. So how many pedo Priests were excommunicated?

It's times like this I thank James Madison and company for th e Establishment Clause.

Interesting. So how many pedo Priests were excommunicated?

and how many rapist stepfathers of this particular little girl were?

Interesting. So how many pedo Priests were excommunicated?


Actually several priest who were found to be guility of child abuse where excommunicated and banned from the priest hood.

Actually several priest who were found to be guility of child abuse where excommunicated and banned from the priest hood.

Got a linky.

The stuff I read (granted not recently) said they were defrocked but not excommunicated.

i personally like how the "abominable crime" in question isn't the rape of a little girl by her stepfather. perhaps it hits a little close to home for the cardinal...

I think it is a given that the Catholic Church does not, or at least should not, support either rape or pedophila but thats up for the courts to deal with and punsih, not the Church

I am going to speculate that the reason the girl was not excommunicated is that as a child, she cannot be held accountable for this choice -- neither that her stepfather forced himself on her or that the other adults involved decided that for her physical and mental well-being, an abortion was the best choice.

I believe they did not say anything regarding the stepfather because the story concerns him only tangentally -- that is, the focus here isn't the girl or her stepfather, per se, but the excommmunication of the medical team and possibly of the adult relatives of this girl because they condoned, sought, and performed an abortion which, as has been said here already, the church considers to be murder no matter what the reason.

Points for consistency, perhaps. Points for compassion and humanity towards this girl? Not so much.

I am going to speculate that the reason the girl was not excommunicated is that as a child, she cannot be held accountable for this choice -- neither that her stepfather forced himself on her or that the other adults involved decided that for her physical and mental well-being, an abortion was the best choice.

I believe they did not say anything regarding the stepfather because the story concerns him only tangentally -- that is, the focus here isn't the girl or her stepfather, per se, but the excommmunication of the medical team and possibly of the adult relatives of this girl because they condoned, sought, and performed an abortion which, as has been said here already, the church considers to be murder no matter what the reason.

Points for consistency, perhaps. Points for compassion and humanity towards this girl? Not so much.

The problem is the Vatican seeks to control the laws of the land.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".

When you spout morals, you don't pick and choose. Murder is evil. Raping a child is evil.

The Catholic Church agrees that both those things are wrong and as it considers abortion to be murder and thus wrong, is it wrong for the Catholic Church to make a stand on it?

This seems to be more making a point then changing the law, saying "if you legalise murder we kick you out of the church" is mostly making its view known. Like turning on all the lights every time the USA execute somebody, it won't change the law but it gets the point across

The problem is the Vatican seeks to control the laws of the land.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".

When you spout morals, you don't pick and choose. Murder is evil. Raping a child is evil.

You're not going to get me to disagree on rape being evil. As for the Vatican seeking to control the laws of the land -- that only works, really, if people pay it any heed.

Got a linky.

The stuff I read (granted not recently) said they were defrocked but not excommunicated.

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

You forgot Vatican II.

You are right, they have been abusing their positions for a long time.
http://members.tripod.com/~rootsunknown/intro1.htm

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

So instead of modernising it remains entrenched in centuries-old dogma and hypocrisy?

That's a great quality for an organisation. :rolleyes:

So instead of modernising it remains entrenched in centuries-old dogma and hypocrisy?

That's a great quality for an organisation. :rolleyes:

I would rather be in an organization that doesn't change with the winds than one that does. Dont really need to go into Church one week and hear the preacher goes "We're against such and such" and then next week hearing him say "Well, we came up with a few provisionals..."

bump for the other shift of NSers

So instead of modernising it remains entrenched in centuries-old dogma and hypocrisy?

That's a great quality for an organisation. :rolleyes:

that would be millenia-old dogma and hypocrisy.

thats why they remain the worlds largest organisation 2,000 years on, not changing with the wind.

right or wrong, its their belief

that would be millenia-old dogma and hypocrisy.

thats why they remain the worlds largest organisation 2,000 years on, not changing with the wind.

right or wrong, its their belief

Actually, Catholicism has indeed "changed with the wind" so to speak. It's just that when it has done so, it was after serious consideration. The Church doesn't take changing it's beliefs lightly, which I would certainly agree is a good thing. I don't take changing my beliefs lightly either. My beliefs are a very serious matter to me, particularly the metaphysical and ethical/moral beliefs.

Please don't post links to the Guardian on my forum.

Good for them. personally I find their actions abominable, but at least they have fervour.

Please don't post links to the Guardian on my forum.

Good for them. personally I find their actions abominable, but at least they have fervour.

Unclean, is it? And since when has fervour been a virtue?

Unclean, is it? And since when has fervour been a virtue?

Yes, it bloody is. Read the Telegraph.

Since it got things done.

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

So no matter what the Catholic chruch is ok with raping children. Oh yeah whats not to like :rolleyes:

Yes, it bloody is. Read the Telegraph.

Since it got things done.

The Maily Telegraph? Just cos it uses long words doesn't mean it's any less reactionary.

Pfft, if I got excommunicated for that, I'd have it framed.

The Maily Telegraph? Just cos it uses long words doesn't mean it's any less reactionary.

Pfft, if I got excommunicated for that, I'd have it framed.

Got anything new? Nah, thought not. Is this an indibtment of the Telegraph as un-objective, as opposed to that fountain of centrism the Guardian?

Got anything new? Nah, thought not. Is this an indibtment of the Telegraph as un-objective, as opposed to that fountain of centrism the Guardian?

Never claimed the Guardian was centrist. Newspapers these days are opinion pieces, simple as that. I happen to agree with the Guardian a hell of a lot more than I do the Telegraph. What I had a problem with was your reaction to the posting of a Guardian link, it's not like the facts are in dispute. You could have been being facetious, however. I don't know.

So no matter what the Catholic chruch is ok with raping children. Oh yeah whats not to like :rolleyes:

Nice strawman, just because the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate some doctors because they performed an abortion, that must mean that they are for child raping. :rolleyes: .

I've already been ecommunicated. In fact, any ex-Catholic who formally renounces their religion (Apostasy) is automatically excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, and technically, anyone who has or performs an abortion is automatically excommunicated too. The Pope doesn't even need to sign anything. Silly Catholics.

I've already been ecommunicated. In fact, any ex-Catholic who formally renounces their religion (Apostasy) is automatically excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, and technically, anyone who has or performs an abortion is automatically excommunicated too. The Pope doesn't even need to sign anything. Silly Catholics.

Yea, we're slowly trying to catch up to the 21st Century. Mainly by mainstreaming our excommunications! :p

It's become perfectly obvious to me over the years that all religious belief is psychosis and its practitioners are psychos. With that in mind, I expect very little from religious people and organizations except psychotic behaviour, and am surprised at nothing they do.

I would rather be in an organization that doesn't change with the winds than one that does. Dont really need to go into Church one week and hear the preacher goes "We're against such and such" and then next week hearing him say "Well, we came up with a few provisionals..."

So you are ok with their continued practice of raping children?

After all that would require change to stop it.

Never claimed the Guardian was centrist. Newspapers these days are opinion pieces, simple as that. I happen to agree with the Guardian a hell of a lot more than I do the Telegraph. What I had a problem with was your reaction to the posting of a Guardian link, it's not like the facts are in dispute. You could have been being facetious, however. I don't know.

Obviously. I've never read the Guardian in my life with the exception of General Studies lessons.

So you are ok with their continued practice of raping children?

After all that would require change to stop it.

:rolleyes: Really I do love these strawmans, They are great. I think it would be obvious that I would be against child raping and thus would want my church to flush out the priest that did them. The church did. Now, notice with me if you will how everyone seems to equate excommunication for performing abortion = in favor of child raping. Now when you look at it like that, that just seems silly doesn't it? Instead it should be like this step father = favor of child raping. You know since he did the actual act himself.

Nice strawman, just because the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate some doctors because they performed an abortion, that must mean that they are for child raping. :rolleyes: .

Fact remains: No Priest has been ex-communicated for doing it.

It is on the same level as abortion simply because it violated that trust of a Priest and a child, the childs family if not the whole Parish.

The gravest sin is the fact the Church was moving these monsters around and setting them up in new positions to attack other children.

Fact remains: No Priest has been ex-communicated for doing it.

It is on the same level as abortion simply because it violated that trust of a Priest and a child, the childs family if not the whole Parish.

The gravest sin is the fact the Church was moving these monsters around and setting them up in new positions to attack other children.

*sigh* You do realize that Catholic Priest get moved around every 4-5 years regardless if he commited child abuse, right? While I can't find any source of excommunication (yet, still looking) the priests have at least been deflocked.

:rolleyes: Really I do love these strawmans, They are great. I think it would be obvious that I would be against child raping and thus would want my church to flush out the priest that did them. The church did. Now, notice with me if you will how everyone seems to equate excommunication for performing abortion = in favor of child raping. Now when you look at it like that, that just seems silly doesn't it? Instead it should be like this step father = favor of child raping. You know since he did the actual act himself.

Strawman is nice claim to dodge a position you can't defend.

The problem is the Church is ready to dispense morality and kick people out and yet will not kick out their own violaters.

It's the wrong message!

Do as we say! Not as we do!

The message from the Vatican when the magnitude was announced. You attack a child, you are defrocked, ex-communicated and handed over to the authorities.

But it was far easier to move them around.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, said in addition to the doctors and nurses, the measure could apply to "relatives, politicians and lawmakers" whom he called "protagonists in this abominable crime".
Doesn't "protagonist" mean "good guy"?

Strawman is nice claim to dodge a position you can defend.

The problem is the Church is ready to dispense morality and kick people out and yet will not kick out their own violaters.

They are already deflocked and many authorities all around the globe are putting these priest on trials and the one that are found guilty are being put in jail, what more do you want?

It's the wrong message!

Nah not really, I mean if you're not going to follow the organization rules, then why be in the organization?

The message from the Vatican when the magnitude was announced. You attack a child, you are defrocked, ex-communicated and handed over to the authorities.

Which is what they did with the priest.

But it was far easier to move them around.

Once again all priest are moved around in a 4-5 year cycle.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

Amen, friend.

There's a lot to criticize the Catholic Church for, and most of all for its failure to purge the clergy of child molesters in particular and sexual deviants in general. And since I'm a harsh critic of certain other creeds (that shall go nameless here), consistency dictates that I subject my own denomination to scrutiny. And I do.

That having been said, this is one issue where the RCC is spot-on morally correct. Praise God for it.

*sigh* You do realize that Catholic Priest get moved around every 4-5 years regardless if he commited child abuse, right? While I can't find any source of excommunication (yet, still looking) the priests have at least been deflocked.

Due to the Catholic Church having a major lack in priests.

But it was far easier to move them around.
Priests can and will be moved at the drop of a hat. No one has any say in it except the Bishop and up, thus it is no easier or harder to move priests around based on circumstance.

*sigh* You do realize that Catholic Priest get moved around every 4-5 years regardless if he commited child abuse, right? While I can't find any source of excommunication (yet, still looking) the priests have at least been deflocked.

In these cases it was not simple chance they were rotated.

For example, a co-worker has a husband who is Irish. He came home from a visit in a foul mood. After a couple days she sat him down and told him to talk.

He said he has just learned from his life long friend that he had been kidnapped, raped and tortured by the village Priest. The response. The Bishop appeared asked the family not to make noise about it and they would deal with it. Being the religious people they were; they agreed.

The result, he was sent to Canada and setup next to children again.

End result: The kid and his family stopped going to Church and now the co-workers husband stopped.

Sorry but it is well documented they were hiding these animals.

The worst one for this practice was Cardinal Law. His punishment, made Rector of the very Church you saw JPII's service.

Due to the Catholic Church having a major lack in priests.

Of course. No one wants to be a priest today. :(

In these cases it was not simple chance they were rotated.

For example, a co-worker has a husband who is Irish. He came home from a visit in a foul mood. After a couple days she sat him down and told him to talk.

He said he has just learned from his life long friend that he had been kidnapped, raped and tortured by the village Priest. The response. The Bishop appeared asked the family not to make noise about it and they would deal with it. Being the religious people they were; they agreed.

The result, he was sent to Canada and setup next to children again.

End result: The kid and his family stopped going to Church and now the co-workers husband stopped.

Sorry but it is well documented they were hiding these animals.

The worst one for this practice was Cardinal O'Conner. His punishment, made Rector of the very Church you saw JPII's service.

Source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1861532,00.html


i say good for them. perhaps one day they will excommunicate themselves out of business altogether. it will probably take a little longer than i'd prefer, but nobody seems up for a solid round of anti-clerical rioting just now, so it'll have to do.

Any Catholic who is involved in abortion is automatically excommunicated immediately after they commit the action. It's been the rule for some time. In Catholic theology, the circumstances of the action (in this case, the fact that the pregnency was due to rape) cannot make the a sinful action (in this case, abortion) not a sin, but can reduce the responsibility of the people involved.

In most cases, if they want their excommunication to end, it's simply a matter of going to see a priest and being truly sorry and he'll let you rejoin the church.

The church deplores rape and considers it a serious sin. The fact that the Church excommunicated these doctors does nothing to change that. Read the Bible or any church document on sexuality and you'll see how sacred the Church views sex to be -- and how evil they consider any perversion (the greatest of which is rape) of it to be.

They are already deflocked and many authorities all around the globe are putting these priest on trials and the one that are found guilty are being put in jail, what more do you want?

Ex-communication! What better message to send?


Nah not really, I mean if you're not going to follow the organization rules, then why be in the organization?

Which is why they are loosing ground in the Western world. If not for Africa and South America; they would be in a terrible position.


Which is what they did with the priest.

No they haven't ex-communicated them.


Once again all priest are moved around in a 4-5 year cycle.

Once again you obviously missed the whole story of Cardinal Law and his practice of moving them around.

Of course. No one wants to be a priest today. :(

Yup. I guess that monolithic stance is working for them.

If it wasn't for Africa and South America, they would really be hurting.

I seriously gave thought to the Priesthood once.....

It's things like these that make me ashamed to be a Catholic.

Yeah let's completely ignore the fact that you're punishing the family, the doctors and the politicians, while looking the other way about the man who RAPED his stepdaughter (which is in my most humble opinion, far more "heinous" than abortion). Did you ever take into account that this was the only way the kid could grow up with any sense of sanity? Would you rather her suffer through child-birth, who considering her age and where she lives could KILL her, AND the "stigma" attached to being raped (which is bullshit in it's own right). You'll probably bring up some crap on "sex out of wedlock" with this situation too won't you?

Way to prioritize there bub.

:upyours: I hope you can see this because I am trying harder than I ever have before.

Any Catholic who is involved in abortion is automatically excommunicated immediately after they commit the action. It's been the rule for some time. In Catholic theology, the circumstances of the action (in this case, the fact that the pregnency was due to rape) cannot make the a sinful action (in this case, abortion) not a sin, but can reduce the responsibility of the people involved.

In most cases, if they want their excommunication to end, it's simply a matter of going to see a priest and being truly sorry and he'll let you rejoin the church.

The church deplores rape and considers it a serious sin. The fact that the Church excommunicated these doctors does nothing to change that. Read the Bible or any church document on sexuality and you'll see how sacred the Church views sex to be -- and how evil they consider any perversion (the greatest of which is rape) of it to be.

Thank you.

Yup. I guess that monolithic stance is working for them.

If it wasn't for Africa and South America, they would really be hurting.

I seriously gave thought to the Priesthood once.....

Well, if you think about it, the Catholic Church never really had the west for quite a while. Not since King Henry XVI and his church that he created just so he can divorce his wife.

Any Catholic who is involved in abortion is automatically excommunicated immediately after they commit the action. It's been the rule for some time. In Catholic theology, the circumstances of the action (in this case, the fact that the pregnency was due to rape) cannot make the a sinful action (in this case, abortion) not a sin, but can reduce the responsibility of the people involved.

In most cases, if they want their excommunication to end, it's simply a matter of going to see a priest and being truly sorry and he'll let you rejoin the church.

The church deplores rape and considers it a serious sin. The fact that the Church excommunicated these doctors does nothing to change that. Read the Bible or any church document on sexuality and you'll see how sacred the Church views sex to be -- and how evil they consider any perversion (the greatest of which is rape) of it to be.

I understand their policies, and I'm sure that they do hold rape as heinous. But I haven't heard anywhere in this story the stepfather being excommunicated for violating his family trust and raping his stepdaughter.

I'm upset with their lack of prioritization skills.

I understand their policies, and I'm sure that they do hold rape as heinous. But I haven't heard anywhere in this story the stepfather being excommunicated for violating his family trust and raping his stepdaughter.

I'm upset with their lack of prioritization skills.

What if the father wasn't Catholic though?

Source?

Sorry I mispoke. My Vatican II comment made me think of O'Conner.

This was Cardinal Law of Boston.

Here is one transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/13/bn.03.html

What if the father wasn't Catholic though?

I also understand that that would be different, but still it pisses me off to no end that they seem to take no stance in this case and completely ignore the fact that this abortion was not because of "greed" but because a CHILD was RAPED and was PREGNANT at the age of ELEVEN and could have DIED during child-birth considering her age.

This kind of shit really fucking purturbs me.

Not since King Henry XVI and his church that he created just so he can divorce his wife.

Henry XVI?

Seeing double?

I also understand that that would be different, but still it pisses me off to no end that they seem to take no stance in this case and completely ignore the fact that this abortion was not because of "greed" but because a CHILD was RAPED and was PREGNANT at the age of ELEVEN and could have DIED during child-birth considering her age.

This kind of shit really fucking purturbs me.

I don't think anyone is denying that the child rape itself was wrong, of course it was wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is sick. However, just because the child was rape, doesn't mean that the church should change it's position on abortions.

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

Yeah but it started of being incredibly inconsistant with the early church, changing its ideals more and more to gain more power.

I don't think anyone is denying that the child rape itself was wrong, of course it was wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is sick. However, just because the child was rape, doesn't mean that the church should change it's position on abortions.

Yeah...well...I'm not the only one who thinks the Catholic church needs to join the 21st century.

Yeah...well...I'm not the only one who thinks the Catholic church needs to join the 21st century.

Personally I think keeping their teachings and dogma in tune with The Bible and Jesus teaching is more important than "joining the 21th century."

Yeah but it started of being incredibly inconsistant with the early church, changing its ideals more and more to gain more power.

Well any organization would be like that when it first starts.

Well any organization would be like that when it first starts.

Yet they did not change back again, they stayed that way.

Yet they did not change back again, they stayed that way.

eh *shrugs*.

Personally I think keeping their teachings and dogma in tune with The Bible and Jesus teaching is more important than "joining the 21th century."

Institutions must evolve along with the cultures that they are contained within...that is my stance, just look at Vatican II, which was an attempt to change the church alongside changes in society.

And as for dogma...there have been MORE than a few occasions where churches of every denomination have fallen short, whether by accident or design, for good or for ill.

I will always have disagreements with the Catholic Church, and I sincerly think that things must be changed if the institution is to survive.

Institutions must evolve along with the cultures that they are contained within...that is my stance, just look at Vatican II, which was an attempt to change the church alongside changes in society.

And as for dogma...there have been MORE than a few occasions where churches of every denomination have fallen short, whether by accident or design, for good or for ill.

I will always have disagreements with the Catholic Church, and I sincerly think that things must be changed if the institution is to survive.

Yea, but who says those evolution were good? Just because society change doesn't automatically mean that the insitution has to change. Sure other churches may have more members, but it's about quality not quanity. I would rather go to a church that stays true to The Bible and Jesus's teaching than one that "evolves" with society.

As for Dogma, of coourse they've fallen short, dogmas are creation of man. Any creation of man will fall short because man is falliable, thereforth anything created by man is falliable.

However, just because the child was rape, doesn't mean that the church should change it's position on abortions.

typically if your ethical pronouncements lead to absurd or bad ethical conclusions, then it is taken as pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with your proposed norm and your should change it somehow.

typically if your ethical pronouncements lead to absurd or bad ethical conclusions, then it is taken as pretty good evidence that there is something wrong with your proposed norm and your should change it somehow.

Not if you have really good reasons for your "proposed norm." In such a case, intuitive assessments of a given ethical conclusion may be what is in need of revision, not the "ethical pronouncements."

If the Catholic Church is right that the fetus has a moral value equivalent to that of an autonomous and rational post-birth human being (and the situation of this girl is irrelevant to that question), then they have at least a very convincing case, if not a conclusive one, that abortion should be prohibited even in circumstances as awful as those this girl is suffering. Their willingness to accept the logical conclusions of their ethical pronouncements places them above those who would prefer to invent incoherent excuses for not accepting those conclusions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1861532,00.html


i say good for them. perhaps one day they will excommunicate themselves out of business altogether. it will probably take a little longer than i'd prefer, but nobody seems up for a solid round of anti-clerical rioting just now, so it'll have to do.

I wonder if they excommunicated the father?

Not if you have really good reasons for your "proposed norm." In such a case, intuitive assessments of a given ethical conclusion may be what is in need of revision, not the "ethical pronouncements."

oh certainly. but since all they actually have is the divine command theory to rely on (and its a divine command not even found in the generally agreed on text of divine commands for their particular divinity), they do face some significant hurdles in demonstrating the good reasons that my moral intuitions are wrong on this point.

I wonder if they excommunicated the father?

Depends if he was involved in the abortion I suppose

Their willingness to accept the logical conclusions of their ethical pronouncements places them above those who would prefer to invent incoherent excuses for not accepting those conclusions.

at least in terms of consistency. but i'm not sure that being consistently wrong actually is better than incoherence.

Actually no I don't, so I got nothing.

Now to the story itself, is raping an underage child wrong, yes. The Catholic Church is an organization that doesn't change it views or adjust it. That one of the many reason I like the Roman Catholic Church. Other denomination may change their views and ideology with the winds, and society, but the Roman Catholic Church is rock solid baby.

You quite obviously know nothing about the history of the Catholic church, then. Ever heard of Vatican II? How about the First Council of Nicaea? The Councils of Constantinople? Not ringing any bells? Oh well.

The Catholic church has changed its views - and sometimes, it's entire church structure - when the old version was considered outdated.

Hardly unchanging.

Nice strawman, just because the Roman Catholic Church excommunicate some doctors because they performed an abortion, that must mean that they are for child raping. :rolleyes: .

Did they punish the guy that raped her? Oh no try again then.

Did they punish the guy that raped her? Oh no try again then.Well, considering that the identity of the girl isn't made public, perhaps they can't seeing as they might not be aware of who it is...

Interesting. So how many pedo Priests were excommunicated?

It's times like this I thank James Madison and company for th e Establishment Clause.

The one that fooled around with me is apparently still at the abby less then 10 15 miles down the road from me (St. Johns)

oh certainly. but since all they actually have is the divine command theory to rely on (and its a divine command not even found in the generally agreed on text of divine commands for their particular divinity), they do face some significant hurdles in demonstrating the good reasons that my moral intuitions are wrong on this point.

Technically, they don't rely on divine command theory, but natural law isn't all that much better.

at least in terms of consistency. but i'm not sure that being consistently wrong actually is better than incoherence.

Subordinating principle to convenience is rarely a decent course of action. I might prefer to have the incoherent person in power, but I will never respect her as much as the person who takes up such a stance and holds to it.

Well, considering that the identity of the girl isn't made public, perhaps they can't seeing as they might not be aware of who it is...

perhaps.

going completely off topic: I thought you were German, but your location says USA, what are you doing there:confused:

perhaps.

going completely off topic: I thought you were German, but your location says USA, what are you doing there:confused:Exchange semester. :D

Did you miss the Chronicles of the Baltimore NS meetup?

Exchange semester. :D

Did you miss the Chronicles of the Baltimore NS meetup?

ah, I see.

I did miss it. I happened to be in China at the time. ;)

ah, I see.

I did miss it. I happened to be in China at the time. ;)Devilish place that is. I hear it contains Chinese. And five of them have randomly decided to add me to their MSN contact lists, and asked me to join their circle of friends. Sadly, they did this in Chinese, which I do not speak, and it creeps me out...

Devilish place that is. I hear it contains Chinese. And five of them have randomly decided to add me to their MSN contact lists, and asked me to join their circle of friends. Sadly, they did this in Chinese, which I do not speak, and it creeps me out...

So then how do you know that's what they said?

So then how do you know that's what they said?Babelfish, though grammar is always atrocious. They mainly said "go to this link and join my friend circle" and sent me to their MSN China page, which I couldn't read because it was in Chinese.

i personally like how the "abominable crime" in question isn't the rape of a little girl by her stepfather. perhaps it hits a little close to home for the cardinal...
Heh...

Well, let's assume that the RCC is not in favor of rape... If it excommunicated those that performed the abortion of an 11-year old girl that was raped, it's undoubtedly in favor of forcing the innocent girl to suffer and possibly die because of a fetus.

Which is, in and of itself, a form of rape as far as forcing someone to use their bodies in a way that's hurtful and possibly deadly for them goes.

WAY to get that moral high ground.

So no matter what the Catholic chruch is ok with raping children. Oh yeah whats not to like :rolleyes:

Yeah, not jumping to an absued conclusion here.:rolleyes:

I understand their policies, and I'm sure that they do hold rape as heinous. But I haven't heard anywhere in this story the stepfather being excommunicated for violating his family trust and raping his stepdaughter.

I'm upset with their lack of prioritization skills.

That is because the focus of the story is not on the stepfather, but on the medical team.

Criticizing the church for not excommunicating the stepfather is like criticizing a comedy because there are no Jedi in it. (We don't know whether he was or wasn't -- the story simply does not mention it because it is not important to the focus).

The medical team has been excommunicated for doing their job -- protecting the health of their patient. THAT is what makes it newsworthy.

That is because the focus of the story is not on the stepfather, but on the medical team.

Criticizing the church for not excommunicating the stepfather is like criticizing a comedy because there are no Jedi in it. (We don't know whether he was or wasn't -- the story simply does not mention it because it is not important to the focus).

The medical team has been excommunicated for doing their job -- protecting the health of their patient. THAT is what makes it newsworthy.

I still believe it shows a lack of overall prioritization...and yes I totally agree with you on your theory of the story's newsworthiness.

My grandmother voted for Richard Nixon in 1960 because the priest at her church told the congregation they had to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic, and that made her incensed. She left the church later after getting harassed about her divorce. So even though my mother and her family are Catholic, there's not a lot of love for the Church there.

My grandmother voted for Richard Nixon in 1960 because the priest at her church told the congregation they had to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic, and that made her incensed. She left the church later after getting harassed about her divorce. So even though my mother and her family are Catholic, there's not a lot of love for the Church there.

Welcome to the Federation of Alienated Catholics (F.A.C.)

Sign here please... --> ____________

Finally!

Welcome to the Federation of Alienated Catholics (F.A.C.)

Sign here please... --> _Yesmusic_

Actually, I'm Muslim because my father is and my mother just didn't care either way. That's just how alienated they are.

I would like to accept an honorary membership to your esteemed organization, if it's okay. I know a whole lot of these people.

If the Catholic Church is right that the fetus has a moral value equivalent to that of an autonomous and rational post-birth human being (and the situation of this girl is irrelevant to that question), then they have at least a very convincing case, if not a conclusive one, that abortion should be prohibited even in circumstances as awful as those this girl is suffering. Their willingness to accept the logical conclusions of their ethical pronouncements places them above those who would prefer to invent incoherent excuses for not accepting those conclusions.

on second thought, i wonder if they really are willing to accept the logical consequences of it. would they really save a petri dish with two fertilized eggs on it before they'd save an infant from a burning building?

on second thought, i wonder if they really are willing to accept the logical consequences of it. would they really save a petri dish with two fertilized eggs on it before they'd save an infant from a burning building?

Now that's a good example of a normative conclusion absurd enough to demolish the principle.

Rooting moral value in the possession of a soul is not a particularly wise standard, at least not when such possession has little to do with actually morally relevant characteristics.

The Catholic does change, slowly and often late but I do agree, despite my own problems with the Church, on no abortian and no contraception. They view abortion as murder, ergo they are going to complain.

Is the church corrupt? Yes. Has the church a record of protecting priests? Yes though sometimes no. Blaming the Catholic Church for standing by its belif that abortion is murder and murder is wrong seems a little odd. I do feel sorry for the little girl though

on second thought, i wonder if they really are willing to accept the logical consequences of it. would they really save a petri dish with two fertilized eggs on it before they'd save an infant from a burning building?

Save both? If only one, the breathing infant, the infant is at least breathing but your not making a planned attempt to murder the eggs

Excommunication doesn't really mean a whole lot these days. Sure, the Vatican can do it, but that doesn't mean most Catholics will even know or care about someone being so. Indeed, it's not even like most Catholics who even are aware of it will shun you for it.

Example: One of the people I live with is a fairly religious Catholic and doesn't shun me based on the fact that I am excommunicated.

Save both? If only one, the breathing infant, the infant is at least breathing but your not making a planned attempt to murder the eggs

breathing can't be held as being morally relevant if they are going to hold the ethical claims that they do. if it really is the case that a fetilized egg and an infant and an adult human are all morally equivalent, then it seems obvious to me that in the situation i set up you would have to be obligated to save the two rather than the one.

That was fast.

meh...